BarkingUnicorn:Anyone who has a problem with this cannot also claim that a fetus isn't a human being.

The Mormons actually have to kick young men out of the church to make sure they have enough brides to go around for the senior members. http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.jp/2012/09/where-do-extra-men-go.htm l

That's what I think one of the big things in the Muslim countries with all the extreme terrorists is. They also allow polygamy. So the richest, most powerful old goats snap up all the women and the poor young men are left with no money, no power, and no pussy. When was the last time a George Clooney type playboy went all suicide bomber? If you guessed never, step up and collect your prize.

So a dearth of unwed young men will always lead to trouble. That's my hypothesis and thus objection.

One of Australia's biggest abortion clinics has revealed that parents have requested abortions on gender grounds - although it is "extremely rare" and always refused.

The Fertility Control Clinic - Victoria's biggest abortion provider - told the Senate inquiry that 96 per cent of abortions are performed before 12 weeks' gestation, when it is too early to know the sex.

So anti-abortionists in Australia managed to find one rare case of abortion based on gender, and are using that to try to impose restrictions on abortion. Sounds like the fetus-obsessed, pro-forced-childbirth nuts in the U.S.

while it would be nice to be able to decide for people, we know exactly what happens when you interfere.Both china and india had outlawed gender based abortions.solution? back alley ultrasounds.followed by legal abortions.

"did you have an ultrasound to determine the gender before deciding to have an abortion?"NO

DON.MAC:With the trends of male vs female success rates of the 20 somethings, why would a parent today prefer a male?

An issue that I believe is not spoken about in the article is that, although this is an Australian article, I believe the emphasis on preferring males is predominantly by Chinese and Indian immigrants.

Here's the thing. There may be abortions I don't personally approve of, but that's very different from criminalizing them. The woman in question is the only one who knows her circumstances. So lawmakers can go pat themselves on the back for banning sex-selection abortions and everyone will feel all fuzzy until the first woman is beaten or killed for having a girl or something horrible happens to the first girl infant. Sex-selection abortions can be prevented through education, improving the status of women so having boys isn't seen as an advantage, and providing services so women afraid of giving birth to a daughter have a way to get out of their situation. It needs to be the woman's choice - but create the circumstances so she has a real choice and doesn't feel like she has to have an abortion if the fetus is female.

Eh, I can't summon the outrage. If abortion is a tool of family planning (and that is how it is used) then one can plan their family however they see fit. Also, like the article said, most abortions are too early to discern gender anyway. But,but,but the lost girls! Yeah, those girls don't know the difference. There are greater injustices to women out there, like anti-choice, pro-birth at all costs nutjobs.

Lorelle:One of Australia's biggest abortion clinics has revealed that parents have requested abortions on gender grounds - although it is "extremely rare" and always refused.

The Fertility Control Clinic - Victoria's biggest abortion provider - told the Senate inquiry that 96 per cent of abortions are performed before 12 weeks' gestation, when it is too early to know the sex.

So anti-abortionists in Australia managed to find one rare case of abortion based on gender, and are using that to try to impose restrictions on abortion. Sounds like the fetus-obsessed, pro-forced-childbirth nuts in the U.S.

I mean you definitely opened the link and you pretended to read it. So I have no idea how you got where you're going. The doctors in questions simply want to be able to withhold the child's gender. I mean, the people asking for this are the people who perform general obstetrics and clearly also abortions - although this a bridge too far for them. The argument made above, that such selection is deleterious to society in general, is not lost on these doctors... plus, if anything, this is about xenophobia I suppose and how "crazy foreigners" only want boys.

I'm male and married, I never really had an opinion about abortion other than choice because I don't believe men should be dictating that sort of thing to women. I think the doctors basically want to tell various populations in that country who are gender obsessed "no, you cannot know your babies gender because we don't trust you." That has room to debate and yell and scream, but I think you're off the mark.

Just saying.

//And honestly, it's a terrible human being who would walk in with their mind set one way and then think "Oh the baby's a _____ I guess we're to ______ now." any way you cut that scenario is.... just plain messed up.

Logically speaking, motive is irrelevant when it comes to abortion. It doesn't matter if you were raped or you just don't want a girl. Do you really want to say "You were raped, so this fetus is okay to abort. However, since you simply don't want a girl baby, we will not allow this abortion?" The unborn does not choose how it comes to be; to determine viability for abortion based on that criterion is nonsensical. Whatever reason is given, it is ultimately unimportant in the time before the infant can survive outside the womb.

Yep. You either believe that choice is a right or you do not. Or at least that you should keep your nose out of it.

Implying that it's all black and white and there is no such thing as being in the middle.

Some of us are pro choice, but with restrictions and regulation. You know, kind of like how anyone sane is when it comes to things like guns, voting, driving, and anything else of consequence.

You should be able to obtain an abortion up to a certain point in any pregnancy, with no required waiting period (or, at most, a very small one), covered by insurance, no required ultrasound / other unnecessary steps, etc. But not for any reason under the sun. Not wanting to go ahead with a baby because you lost your job and can't afford it, or it'll be dead on arrival, or it will have a severe defect is ok. Not the choice everyone would make, but it's your choice. Doing the same because you don't like girls is just farked up. Sorry.

I am of the opinion that the choices of women need to be respected and we need to be cognizant of the fact that nobody knows each individual family's situation but each individual family, and one size doesn't fit all. But I am also of the opinion that a fetus, in most cases, WILL eventually become a human, and we should not have people running around getting abortions completely 100% without restriction, rhyme, or reason.

And if you support laws making it such that killing a pregnant woman gives you 2 counts of murder instead of 1, congratulations. You, too, are not 100% on the "fetuses don't matter at all and choice is all that matters" side either.

BarkingUnicorn:Anyone who has a problem with this cannot also claim that a fetus isn't a human being.

I'd consider you pretty farked up if your dog had a litter and you drowned all the female pups out of spite. Do I have to agree that dogs are people now? Please respond ASAP. My dog is standing here with a petition in his mouth and I only have a couple of minutes to decide whether to sign it before the drool makes it illegible.

Strolpol:Logically speaking, motive is irrelevant when it comes to abortion. It doesn't matter if you were raped or you just don't want a girl. Do you really want to say "You were raped, so this fetus is okay to abort. However, since you simply don't want a girl baby, we will not allow this abortion?" The unborn does not choose how it comes to be; to determine viability for abortion based on that criterion is nonsensical. Whatever reason is given, it is ultimately unimportant in the time before the infant can survive outside the womb.

From another standpoint, intent is all that matters. Or a major part of it.

For instance, I could rob a store to buy food for my starving family after I got laid off and can't work due to a disability (and don't qualify for enough/any benefits for one reason or another). Or I could rob a store to buy cheetos and a giant TV and be a couch potato for a while. The action is identical in each case. The intent is completely different. Would you treat both of the above people as being equally "evil"?

The situation here is somewhat similar. There is a big difference between someone wanting to abort because they were raped and don't want to go through 9 months of carrying a reminder of that followed by years of walking, talking reminder, and someone wanting to abort because they don't like girls, or whatever. In the example you're stating, the woman has no problem with the fact that her baby was conceived by rape (she is apparently not bothered by the reminder of the act) but just doesn't want a girl. There being a good reason for her to have an abortion means nothing if she eschews it for a terrible reason instead.

It's true that she could just say "Ok, fine, I want to abort because it's a rape baby", and we have no way of knowing if she's being truthful or not. But, as I said, to people for whom intent is important, that matters.

Strolpol:Logically speaking, motive is irrelevant when it comes to abortion. It doesn't matter if you were raped or you just don't want a girl.

The problem is the externalities. While allowing this seems like it ought to be a right, the problem comes from its societal effects.

With the vast majority of such families requesting sex-based abortion for female children, you end up with a significant population bias toward men. This is exactly what has happened in China, even though the practice is officially illegal. You end up with many straight men who can't find partners.

Researcher:I mean you definitely opened the link and you pretended to read it. So I have no idea how you got where you're going. The doctors in questions simply want to be able to withhold the child's gender. I mean, the people asking for this are the people who perform general obstetrics and clearly also abortions - although this a bridge too far for them. The argument made above, that such selection is deleterious to society in general, is not lost on these doctors... plus, if anything, this is about xenophobia I suppose and how "crazy foreigners" only want boys.

Nah. YOU apparently pretended to read it.

A Senate committee is inquiring into draft legislation prepared by "pro-life" Democratic Labor Party senator John Madigan, which would ban Medicare rebates for gender-selective abortions.

It's not unlike the fetus worshippers in the U.S. who want to ban late-term abortions even though they are rarely performed.

Myria:Strolpol: Logically speaking, motive is irrelevant when it comes to abortion. It doesn't matter if you were raped or you just don't want a girl.

The problem is the externalities. While allowing this seems like it ought to be a right, the problem comes from its societal effects.

With the vast majority of such families requesting sex-based abortion for female children, you end up with a significant population bias toward men. This is exactly what has happened in China, even though the practice is officially illegal. You end up with many straight men who can't find partners.

Tanishh:For instance, I could rob a store to buy food for my starving family after I got laid off and can't work due to a disability (and don't qualify for enough/any benefits for one reason or another). Or I could rob a store to buy cheetos and a giant TV and be a couch potato for a while. The action is identical in each case. The intent is completely different. Would you treat both of the above people as being equally "evil"?

Probably, if only because there's no way to know what's actually going on in your head. Anyone can make up a hard-luck story, and after playing professional victim for a while, many of the worst offenders probably even have the formal diagnoses to go with it. Given that its impossible to really know what a person's motivations are, Occam's razor comes into play. Besides, if it became known that being laid-off is a "get out of jail free" card, then it would be open-season at the Quickie Mart.

cedarpark:DON.MAC: With the trends of male vs female success rates of the 20 somethings, why would a parent today prefer a male?

An issue that I believe is not spoken about in the article is that, although this is an Australian article, I believe the emphasis on preferring males is predominantly by Chinese and Indian immigrants.

I'm probably going to be accused of trolling, but is this the same part of Australia that was having issues with Muslim immigrants beating women up on the beach for wearing revealing clothing, whether those women were Muslims themselves or not? There's a pretty serious "tell" given in the article that at the very least these are probably first or second generation immigrants from a more patriarchal society.

FTFA: "It was the husband who did all the talking - he was so insistent."

/I don't dislike Muslims as a group any more/less than I dislike any other group//stand against the radical elements of whatever group you belong to, or don't complain about being lumped in with them///third slashie is an equal opportunity hater too

sleeps in trees:R.A.Danny: sleeps in trees: Old news. In Canada sex is not revealed through universal medical ultra sound. Private is another story. As that is available everywhere.

This is a big "Ooga Booga Scary" piece which is quite silly.

Have you ever seen an ultrasound? You can tell the sex of the child quite often. Geographic location has nothing to do with it.

Yes thanks I have, many times. Parents are not allowed to see certain photos nor the actual ultra sound. One cannnot make accurate assessments from the ones given through the ultra sound. I said nothing about geographic location, but universal health care.

Impressive. It takes some badly twisted ethics to allow a medical professional to deny a patient access to information gathered from her own body, let alone to mandate the denial.

Lorelle:Researcher: I mean you definitely opened the link and you pretended to read it. So I have no idea how you got where you're going. The doctors in questions simply want to be able to withhold the child's gender. I mean, the people asking for this are the people who perform general obstetrics and clearly also abortions - although this a bridge too far for them. The argument made above, that such selection is deleterious to society in general, is not lost on these doctors... plus, if anything, this is about xenophobia I suppose and how "crazy foreigners" only want boys.

Nah. YOU apparently pretended to read it.

A Senate committee is inquiring into draft legislation prepared by "pro-life" Democratic Labor Party senator John Madigan, which would ban Medicare rebates for gender-selective abortions.

It's not unlike the fetus worshippers in the U.S. who want to ban late-term abortions even though they are rarely performed.

Which they're ALWAYS pushing - regardless of this piece of nonsense article but the entire board of doctors is against it and the Minister of Health rep are like, yeah - not so much.

fta: "It was the husband who did all the talking - he was so insistent."

Abortion should never be the man's decision. Ever. At least, not 100%. It is the height of misogynistic arrogance for the man to assert that he has full control over all rights and usages of his woman's uterus. This shiat always comes from hell-hole countries with social stratification that can best be described as "chauvinistic patriarchies".

R.A.Danny:sleeps in trees: (which is not mentioned as we are with a high Indo/Asian community).

So they take your race into account when deciding to let you know what information they will give someone about their own bodies?Do they still protect "Injuns" from firewater too?

LOLmy guess is that withholding information would be illegal or required by law.there is zero medical risk if you are not informed of the gender of the fetus.but, my guess is that it is illegal for them to tell the gender.because otherwise, HELLO lawsuits